declared by the Apex Court in a catena of cases, the protection afforded by S.197 would be rendered illusory if the words “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act on the discharge of his official duty” is given a narrow meaning. In that case, the section will be rendered sterile. Official duty implies that the act or omission must have been done by him, in the course of his service and in discharge of his duty. Once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty, then it must be given liberal and wide construction so as to advance the object of the section in favour of the public servant. In this case it is evident that petitioner had taken the 2nd respondent in custody in the discharge of his official duties as is clear from the complaint and the allegations specified therein. Therefore, in view of notification dated 6.12.1977 issued by the State Government which was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarojini v. Prasannan, (1996(2)K.L.T.859) , it can only be held that the petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police is an officer against whom sanction as provided under Section 197(1)of Cr.P.C.is mandatory. The learned Magistrate omitted to take into consideration all these facts and taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner. Therefore, cognizance
